Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:05 AM - Re: Fuel Consumption (N1BZRich@aol.com)
2. 06:11 AM - Pictures from fly-in (Jim Langley)
3. 08:42 AM - Re: Fuel Consumption (Hugh Sontag)
4. 08:56 AM - Re: Fuel Consumption (Brian Whittingham)
5. 06:49 PM - Re: Fuel Consumption (N1BZRich@aol.com)
6. 06:51 PM - Re: Fuel Consumption (N1BZRich@AOL.COM)
7. 07:02 PM - Re: Fuel Consumption (N1BZRich@aol.com)
8. 07:04 PM - Re: Fuel Consumption (Jim Langley)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Consumption |
Earl,
I am looking forward to your presentation this weekend. I am sure you
have a lot of good information and data to share that should be very
beneficial for our everyday flight operations. The time an effort that went into
your
record flight planning and testing was probably "many fold" greater than the
flight time it took to actually make the flight. One of the things I would
be really interested in is what you learned about fuel consumption at various
altitudes and power settings. Based on some of the fuel flow data that I
came up with during the initial 40 hour test program and what I am seeing on
long cross countries, I really am beginning to think that the Bing (a great
carb) really does not lean as effectively at the higher altitudes (10,000 and
above) as it does down lower (say below 6 or 8 thousand).
Blue Skies,
Buz
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Pictures from fly-in |
If any of you take pictures at the Fly-In and would like to send them to me,
I will be happy to create a special area on my web site for them.
Jim!
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Consumption |
The Bing carburetor tends to run rich at altitudes above 10,00 feet.
It's also used on Rotax 912's, and the Titan list I also subscribe to
has discussed this a lot.
In fact, one person sets the needle in the carb one notch leaner
because she routinely runs at altitudes above 6000 feet.
I guess whoever designed the leaning mechanism decided to err on the
rich side, which will keep the engine running. Too lean and your
engine dies.
I have personal experience at 11,500 feet - I concluded that the
engine was running richer than needed, because I wasn't getting the
same endurance that I would have expected for the fuel flow rate.
Hugh Sontag
>Earl,
> I am looking forward to your presentation this weekend. I am
>sure you have a lot of good information and data to share that
>should be very beneficial for our everyday flight operations. The
>time an effort that went into your record flight planning and
>testing was probably "many fold" greater than the flight time it
>took to actually make the flight. One of the things I would be
>really interested in is what you learned about fuel consumption at
>various altitudes and power settings. Based on some of the fuel
>flow data that I came up with during the initial 40 hour test
>program and what I am seeing on long cross countries, I really am
>beginning to think that the Bing (a great carb) really does not lean
>as effectively at the higher altitudes (10,000 and above) as it does
>down lower (say below 6 or 8 thousand).
>Blue Skies,
>Buz
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Consumption |
When I was flying an Esqual during the time that Buz was flying the time off
of his plane I took it up to about 12,000+ feet. The whole airplane began
shaking and I wondered if the prop had hit a bird or something and became
unbalanced. I slowed down, checked all my control surfaces and then started
a descent for a precautionary landing at Shelbyville. As I passed through
about 4-5k feet the plane seemed to react much better. Now keep in mind
that I still didn't know if it was an airframe or engine issue. So I went
ahead and cut in front of Buz who was entereing the pattern the right/safe
way and made my call for landing. By the time that I got on the ground I
couldn't replicate the problem. Nick did a runup and nothing. I believe
that we eventually determined that the pressure compensating mechanism had
broken on that carb and it went to full rich (which it's supposed to do as I
understand) and the engine was running so rich that it was shaking the whole
plane at that altitude! I'm glad that the engine stayed running, but from
that altitude I probably could have flown to Nashville and back. A good way
to see if the engine is running too rich is to clean the belly of the plane,
fly for a while and then look at the area just aft of the exhaust and see if
it's smooty. Just like every different engine wanted to run at a different
idle speed to keep it happy, you gotta set up the needle in the carb right.
Some run a little more lean than other engines. It's no big deal, but
something that you want to do in the first 40 to get the best performance
out of the plane. Brian W.
From: Hugh Sontag <flying@qdea.com>
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Fuel Consumption
The Bing carburetor tends to run rich at altitudes above 10,00 feet.
It's also used on Rotax 912's, and the Titan list I also subscribe to has
discussed this a lot.
In fact, one person sets the needle in the carb one notch leaner because she
routinely runs at altitudes above 6000 feet.
I guess whoever designed the leaning mechanism decided to err on the rich
side, which will keep the engine running. Too lean and your engine dies.
I have personal experience at 11,500 feet - I concluded that the engine was
running richer than needed, because I wasn't getting the same endurance that
I would have expected for the fuel flow rate.
Hugh Sontag
>Earl,
> I am looking forward to your presentation this weekend. I am sure you
>have a lot of good information and data to share that should be very
>beneficial for our everyday flight operations. The time an effort that
>went into your record flight planning and testing was probably "many fold"
>greater than the flight time it took to actually make the flight. One of
>the things I would be really interested in is what you learned about fuel
>consumption at various altitudes and power settings. Based on some of the
>fuel flow data that I came up with during the initial 40 hour test program
>and what I am seeing on long cross countries, I really am beginning to
>think that the Bing (a great carb) really does not lean as effectively at
>the higher altitudes (10,000 and above) as it does down lower (say below 6
>or 8 thousand). Blue Skies,
>Buz
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Can you find the hidden words? Take a break and play Seekadoo!
http://club.live.com/seekadoo.aspx?icid=seek_hotmailtextlink1
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Consumption |
Hugh and all,
Good info,and it seems to confirm what my data is showing as to the
Bing's leaning at high altitude. I now have 360 hours on my 3300 in the past
20
months, and other than the standard oil and filter changes, head torques,
valve adjustments, (new plugs, and new caps and rotors at 250 hours), it has
been absolutely trouble tree. I love the engine, but would like to have it lean
a little more efficiently when at the higher altitudes. Heck, I have had it
to 16,000 during the 40 hour test program and it was still climbing at about
400 feet a minute. (Remember N31BZ has the longer wings - heck it is almost
like a motor glider.) My feet were so cold that I decided that was high
enough and declared that the service ceiling was 18,000. No problems with the
engine running smooth up there, but I had already changed the jetting several
times.
I have had the Demo Lightning to 14,500 feet just for grins (it was
still climbing almost 400 fpm) and the fact that a current builder (Dick) lives
in Boulder, Colorado, and will need to operate at the higher elevation
airports.
One other thought, when you are trying to climb to the higher altitudes,
remember that the higher you go, Vx and Vy get closer together. They
basically meet at the service ceiling. Another thought, if your airplane tells
you
true airspeed, use that instead of indicated when climbing at the higher
altitudes.
Blue Skies,
Buz
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Consumption |
In a message dated 9/19/2007 11:57:20 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
dashvii@hotmail.com writes:
A good way to see if the engine is running too rich is to clean the belly of
the plane,
fly for a while and then look at the area just aft of the exhaust and see if
it's smooty.
Good suggestion from Brian if the exhaust pipe is short and does not get
the exhaust residue away from the fuselage bottom. For a longer exhaust pipe
just run your finger inside the pipe and if you get black soot, then you are
running too rich. You really need to check for your particular airplane.
Just because someone else's Lightning with a certain carb jet set up is working
right, yours might still need a different set up. All factors that have to
do with how hard the engine is working will have an effect - which prop you
are using and how many drag reduction efforts you have incorporated into your
"bird" will make a difference. Bottom line, it's part science and part magic.
Blue Skies,
Buz
Attached is a photo I made today of the Prototype Lightning with the latest
drag reduction efforts. ;-)
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Consumption |
In a message dated 9/19/2007 9:51:36 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
N1BZRich@aol.com writes:
I now have 360 hours on my 3300 in the past 20 months, and other than the
standard oil and filter changes, head torques, valve adjustments, (new plugs,
and new caps and rotors at 250 hours), it has been absolutely trouble tree.
Just noticed I put the "(" in the wrong place in the above sentence.
Actually I change spark plugs at every 100 hours, and I changed the caps and rotors
at 250 hours. As to spark plugs, at their price, why clean them.
Buz
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fuel Consumption |
Buz:
You're such a tease..
_____
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
N1BZRich@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Fuel Consumption
In a message dated 9/19/2007 11:57:20 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
dashvii@hotmail.com writes:
A good way to see if the engine is running too rich is to clean the belly of
the plane,
fly for a while and then look at the area just aft of the exhaust and see if
it's smooty.
Good suggestion from Brian if the exhaust pipe is short and does not get
the exhaust residue away from the fuselage bottom. For a longer exhaust
pipe just run your finger inside the pipe and if you get black soot, then
you are running too rich. You really need to check for your particular
airplane. Just because someone else's Lightning with a certain carb jet set
up is working right, yours might still need a different set up. All factors
that have to do with how hard the engine is working will have an effect -
which prop you are using and how many drag reduction efforts you have
incorporated into your "bird" will make a difference. Bottom line, it's
part science and part magic.
Blue Skies,
Buz
Attached is a photo I made today of the Prototype Lightning with the latest
drag reduction efforts. ;-)
_____
Make AOL Your Homepage.
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|